An Analysis on Transformational Analogy: General Framework and Complexity

  • Vithal Kuchibatla
  • Héctor Muñoz-Avila
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4106)


In this paper we present TransUCP, a general framework for transformational analogy. Using our framework we demonstrate that transformational analogy does not meet a crucial condition for a well-known worst-case complexity scenario, and therefore the results about plan adaptation being computationally harder than planning from the scratch does not apply to transformational analogy. We prove this by constructing a counter-example that does not meet this condition. Furthermore, we perform experiments that demonstrate that this counter-example is not an exception. Rather, our experiments show that it is unlikely that this condition will be met when performing plan adaptation with transformational analogy.


Goal State Plan Adaptation Plan Node Solution Plan Partial Plan 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Au, T.C., Muñoz-Avila, H., Nau, D.S.: On the Complexity of Plan Adaptation by Derivational Analogy in a Universal Classical Planning Framework. In: Craw, S., Preece, A.D. (eds.) ECCBR 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2416. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  2. Carbonell, J.G.: Learning by analogy: formulating and generalizing plans from past experience. In: Michalski, R.S., Carbonell, J.G., Mitchell, T.M. (eds.) Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Tioga, Palo Alto, California (1983)Google Scholar
  3. Carbonell, J.G.: Derivational analogy: A theory of reconstructive problem solving and expertise acquisition. Machine Learning (1986)Google Scholar
  4. Cunningham, P., Finn, D., Slattery, S.: Knowledge Engineering Requirements in Derivational Analogy. In: Proceedings of the European Workshop on Case-Based reasoning (ECCBR 1996). Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  5. Kambhampati, S., Srivastava, B.: Universal Classical Planner: An algorithm for unifying state-space and plan-space planning. In: Proceedings of the third European Workshop on Planning (EWSP 1995) (1995)Google Scholar
  6. Hammond, K.: Explaining and repairing plans that fail. Artificial Intelligence 45, 173–228 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hanks, S., Weld, D.: A domain-independent algorithm for plan adaptation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 2 (1995)Google Scholar
  8. Ihrig, L., Kambhampati, S.: Design and implementation of a replay framework based on a partial order planner. In: Proceedings of AAAI 1996. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1996)Google Scholar
  9. Nebel, N., Koehler, J.: Plan reuse versus plan generation: a theoretical and empirical analysis. Artificial Intelligence 76, 427–454 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Veloso, M.: Planning and learning by analogical reasoning. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Cox, M.T., Munoz-Avila, H., Bergmann, R.: Case-based planning. Knowledge Engineering Review (to appear, 2006)Google Scholar
  12. Weld, D.: An Introduction to Least Commitment Planning. AI Magazine 15(4), 27–61 (1994)Google Scholar
  13. Kuchibatla, V.: TransUCP: An Analysis on Transformational Analogy. MS Thesis. Computer Science and Engineering. Department. Lehigh University (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vithal Kuchibatla
    • 1
  • Héctor Muñoz-Avila
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science & EngineeringLehigh UniversityBethlehemUSA

Personalised recommendations